The new Comcast Xbox Xfinity app is the first nail in net neutrality’s coffin

Share This article

Comcast recently announced that Xbox users who subscribe to the company’s Xfinity TV service will now be able to access Xfinity On Demand content on their Xbox 360s — and that doing so won’t count against your 250GB data cap. The cable provider’s new policy has touched off a firestorm of criticism from net neutrality advocates, who point to the decision as proof of just how toothless the FCC’s Open Internet rules are.

One of the challenges of discussing net neutrality is that situations like this can be difficult to understand. Comcast is giving its Xbox-owning subscribers access to content without counting it against their download quota. On its own, that’s great, but the larger trends are disturbing — even harmful.

This is Comcast’s first attempt to distinguish between bits which it delivers for “free” and those it doesn’t. The company claims that “content is being delivered over our private IP network and not the public Internet,” but that’s a meaningless distinction given that Comcast owns the entire pipe and can arbitrarily create private networks any time it’s convenient to do so.

Images like this explain net neutrality, but don't assume the end user is the person being billed.

Comcast’s FAQ strongly implies that Microsoft is compensating it in some fashion for the new service; the document states several times that the Xfinity app is only available to those with an Xbox Live Gold subscription. Streaming from the Xfinity site or using the Xfinity App is still done “over the public Internet” and counts against a user’s bandwidth quota. For companies like Comcast, which has railed against the concept of being a dumb pipe, Microsoft’s decision to pay it for free access for Xbox Gold users is a major coup.

With Microsoft on board, Comcast has taken the first steps towards creating a “pay to play” environment. Good companies, meaning those willing to pay for the privilege, are bundled and offered as part of a premium access package in which customers pay an additional fee in exchange for unmetered access to certain sites.

For once, even Apple iPad owners are left out in the cold.

This hurts consumers in two ways. First, it creates a toll road structure in which any startup or new data service has to pay the Comcast tax or risk being choked out by its own success as angry customers blame the nascent company for high bills or degraded service. Second, it creates a market in which companies have enormous incentive to misrepresent the risk of broadband use in order to make a higher price bracket seem more attractive. The best part about such a service is that it doesn’t require Comcast to lower its existing 250GB cap or try to offer a premium service with lower latency and better service guarantees. The FCC debates over net neutrality last year demonstrated that both of these options are highly unpopular with consumers and, in some cases, technically difficult to achieve.

Selling you the right to unmetered access, in contrast, is simple. Comcast doesn’t have to lie or even obfuscate; selling consumers services they don’t need and will never take advantage of is virtually enshrined in the US Constitution. The ad copy nearly writes itself: “Want to stream HD TV shows and movies to your phone or tablet, but concerned about the bandwidth? New Comcast XFinity Pass takes care of it. For just $4.99 a month, you can stream all the Xfinity TV you want — or, for $9.99, get unlimited streaming from YouTube, Netflix, Blockbuster, Vudu, DailyMotion, and the UltraViolet movie service.”

Would there be a handful of users who “exploit” such offers? Sure. There always are. But the overwhelming majority of people who signed up for such a service would be paying extra money for something they’ve already bought. There are only two valid market forces that should dictate broadband price — time and quantity. Of the two, the former is more important than the latter; the marginal cost of an extra 1MB/s of bandwidth in downtown San Francisco is much higher at 4:30 PM than it is at 4:30 AM.

Free Xfinity service for Comcast’s Gold Xbox Live subscribers is a nice deal, in and of itself, but it’s the first step towards monetizing the idea that Comcast has the right to determine which bits are free, and which aren’t. It gives the company a sledgehammer to wield in price negotiations and an artificial carrot it can sell to customers who have only the vaguest idea how much bandwidth they use. It builds a further layer of obfuscation between the actual cost of network access and what customers perceive as a fair market price, and it serves the best interests of no one — except Comcast itself.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Michael Vittiglio

If this is allowed to stand then the game is over. It might have been over for a while now but this is the tip of the iceberg unless it’s smashed to little pieces before all other ISP’s to set a good example. This is disgusting.

http://twitter.com/SkyeADG Joel

Why is it disgusting? It’s only a problem if Microsoft makes this an exclusive deal with Comcast. They’re in the process of doing a similar deal with ATT for UVerse customers. I’ve no idea what Sony is doing, but they only have about 5 customers anyway on their paid network for PS3 :). As long as Microsoft isn’t cutting out other providers, there’s no problem. As long as Comcast doesn’t maintain this as an exclusive deal with MS and cut out Sony, Nintendo, and the myriad makers of DVD players with network connections, there’s no problem.

Anonymous

obfuscation ;) awesome use of the word, and good message overall. Thank you

Neon Frank

Remember when Cable TV first came out in the 1970’s, it was all about the difference between free to air and paid cable TV stations was NO COMMERCIALS. How’s that working out?

Not so long ago the marketing is faster and faster Internet connections with unlimited data…and now?

Its all an extended bait and switch we all fall for regardless of Lincoln’s quote. “Fooling everyone all of the time”

mc1964

Why does the FCC even exist if they can’t regulate communications?

Anonymous

This has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality, because the content isn’t being delivered over the Internet. Your cable modem doesn’t connect directly to the Internet, instead it connects to Comcast’s network and then their network connects to the Internet through a backbone provider. From what I’ve read, it sounds like Comcast is hosting this content directly on their private network which is then sent directly to your modem without using the backbone connection. It’s similar to how AOL offered exclusive services to their subscribers back in the days of dial-up.

Net neutrality is in regards to an ISP favoring one public web site over another. For example, if they were to charge somebody $0.05 to access Google and $0.01 to access Bing, which are publicly available on the Internet.

http://wraith808.com/id/ wraith808

So if say Google wanted YouTube to be free of cap to Comcast users, they could mirror their content on a server that’s on the Comcast private network, and that would be OK, right?

I mean, that’s not far-fetched since this includes HBO content, and everyone that uses HBOGo isn’t on Comcast, so either (a) HBO is hosting a mirror on Comcast’s private network (as users of other set-top boxes couldn’t access the Comcast private network so they must have content elsewhere), or (b) your argument is a straw man.

Joel Hruska

ScienceNews,

No, net neutrality refers to treating bits equally. Favoring one website over another is *one* way to do that. Another way is to treat user bandwidth differently. If Service A counts against your monthly bandwidth cap, and Service B doesn’t, hey, that’s an incentive to use Service B.

“the content isn’t being delivered over the Internet Your cable modem doesn’t connect directly to the Internet, instead it connects to Comcast’s network and then their network connects to the Internet through a backbone provider.

Check the Wikipedia definition; it’s highly applicable. “The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite (often called TCP/IP, although not all protocols use TCP) to serve billions of users worldwide. It is a network of networks…

You’re implying that “the Internet” only exists out there amongst the stars (or backbones, in this case). The idea that one’s cable modem must plug directly into an OC3 line is not only contrary to the definition of what the Internet is, it’s not even possible given how bandwidth is bought and sold.

Now, is it possible for Comcast to deliver a service via their own private network? Sure it is. But there’s a few gaping holes in this explanation.

1) Xfinity.com and the Xfinity TV app both count against your download quota. So whatever private network Comcast has built, it’s only capable of delivering a service over the private network if it has Xbox Magic!

2) There’s no such thing as Xbox Magic. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that Comcast has created an entirely separate, private network solely for Xbox users.

3) Comcast can, of course, dedicate a section of fabric that it already owns to this process. In that sense, the network is private. But they didn’t make that happen by going out and laying new infrastructure, they arbitrarily chose to set aside capacity for a dedicated purpose. Why?

4) Because Microsoft paid them for it.

So customers get a “free” service that isn’t actually free. It doesn’t count against your bandwidth use because the bandwidth is private when, in reality, Comcast can declare any sort of service “private” if it wants to.

This stinks. It’s an anti-competitive power grab. If you really think that Comcast has built a private network for Xbox Live customers and are giving away bandwidth out of the goodness of its collective heart, I’ve got a digital bridge to sell you

Anonymous

except the xbox is not a mobile device; when registered with your Comcast ID is registered also against your cable modem and will be used only from that location (hooked up to the “private” Comcast network). Xfinity.com and xfinity tv apps on the other hand are mobile so their piping of content would (also) go out on the “public” internet whenever you consume their content on the go.

Joel Hruska

Sure. So do me a favor. Show me the feeds on your Comcast modem for “Private Network” vs. “Open Internet.”

Joel Hruska

Addendum to this:

It’s the fact that you only get this service if you have an Xbox that punches a giant hole in Comcast’s “private network vs. open Internet” delivery system.

Sure, Comcast could have a private network for delivering Xfinity, and it *could* deliver that data straight to your cable modem. But the Xbox doesn’t have an independent connection of any sort.

That’s what makes the distinction arbitrary. It’s not that Comcast can’t be using a private network to deliver Xfinity — it’s that there’s absolutely no reason why Comcast can’t give Xfinity on Demand to its regular customers over the same network, without counting it against their monthly quota.

But it’s not doing that. Why not? Because MS paid for the privilege. And *that’s* the point. Comcast has persuaded Microsoft to offer a feature to Xbox owners based not on extending a service, but on *how that service is billed.* This is how you get out of being a dumb pipe.

Anonymous

I’d just like to say I like not having a cell phone and getting a flat online service. This would drive me batshit.

Adam Olia

Now that I have tried to use this service for 2 days, I can say that not only does it seem wrong from a net-neutrality point of view, they created all of this fuss over a truly lousy application. The content is extremely limited. When they say “watch whole seasons” they mean only the most recent season. Not all of them. And beyond that, the quality is so poor it is virtually unwatchable. Colors are washed out, and the sound seems like blankets are covering my speakers. Good job Comast…one more way to mess something up.

Anonymous

So at the end of the day you guys are complaining about Xfinity subscribers getting additional services and greater value for their $ while paying the same price. Am I missing something?

Joel Hruska

Yes. For starters, the entire point of the article — which leads me to believe you didn’t actually read it. If you had, you’d be saying: “I think the benefit of more services and a better value/$ outweighs any risk to net neutrality,” or “This isn’t about net neutrality,” as other commenters have done.

Anonymous

I read the whole article and each comment and only saw complaints about theoretical, unquantifiable outcomes. In reality, however, Xfinity subscribers get additional value without spending an additional penny. Nobody’s freedom or content consumption choices have been restricted in any real, tangible or measureable way.

Joel Hruska

Then you aren’t missing something. You’re disagreeing with my position, which is something entirely different. Your initial comment implies you read the headline, then jumped to write about it.

As for the “tangible / measurable” harm, business decisions are made all the time based on possibilities. The FCC denied the AT&T / T-Mobile merger because it believed consumers were harmed. Airlines were deregulated because it was believed that regulation harmed consumers.

The cable companies and telcos have repeatedly indicated that they *hate* being dumb pipes. The major companies pushing against net neutrality did so because they wanted the freedom to offer prioritized speeds and preferential pricing.

Offering a service that doesn’t count against your monthly bandwidth quota is a means of making that service more attractive to customers.

Those are all facts. You can argue that Comcast *won’t*ever try to monetize this concept further, but I think the preponderance of evidence favors my prediction. You can certainly argue that it’s not a problem (this is more of a value question), but companies look for new revenue opportunities based on what customers might do. Governments and regulatory bodies make legislation and policy based what outcomes might occur.

The what-if game is an essential part of life, business, and politics. Therefore I don’t think its out of line to write an article discussing potential outcomes .

http://gbleezy.com Graham Savai’i Hart

everything should be free…everyone should be happy…

JT Jones

What was the name of that chick that worked for the FCC, but is now on the Comcast – Universal payroll, (nice Sarah P. red blazer by the way)…. Hey Comcast just give everyone 1Gb x 1TB access for 50 bucks a month and be done with it.

Messengers / Smoke Signals & Dial Up…oh my…

http://PiedType.com/ PiedType

I’m confused about all this, what it actually is, and what it means to me, my Xbox, and the idea of net neutrality. But then, it took me months to figure out that Xfinity was nothing more than a rebranding of the Comcast services I had already subscribed to. They keep trying to sell me more stuff, but I’ve got all I want.

http://profile.yahoo.com/MTTEI7MVTZQLK4NUQDFGS6653Y clem

whatever the terms are they should not be offered to one company and not another. That seems a simpler wrong to understand, harder to defend, but I’m not saying it should exist at all either.

I have believed that my municipality should be able to require the cable company to provide access to local content contributors, thatwhat used to be analog video channels should be updated to include data and that such data need not be available outside it’s local cable boxes after being injected also locally so not really internet- not for local dsl customers but only cable customers and only ones of there company.

THe problem in moernising is that content providers ahve to pay a lot to inject data into the internet. THe more consumers of itthe more you pay- unlike tv channels that cost teh same, not considering lost profits if watching themhas customers not pay for some other content instead.

So i think there should be recognition that there network exists within a city and that they use backbones provideed by others to connenctu s to nonsubscribrs or evne there own in other cities.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.